Plague in Perspective: the Case of Manchester in 1605
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PLAGUE IN PERSPECTIVE: THE CASE OF MANCHESTER IN 1605 T.S. Willan, M.A., D.Phil. HERE has been much work in recent years on the medical Taspects of bubonic plague in England,' but few attempts have been made to assess the effects of heavy mortality on the social structure and economic life of the towns that experienced such mortality. These effects are not easy to determine. It is difficult to relate total deaths to total popula tion when an estimate of the latter may involve a good deal of guess work. Even when it is reasonably clear that mortality was very heavy, it is still difficult to show how that mortality affected the social structure and economic life of a town. These difficulties can be examined, though hardly resolved, in the context of Manchester's great plague of 1605. Records of burials in the register of the parish church suggest that Manchester suffered from plague in the 1580s and 1590s when there was heavy mortality in the summer months of 1588 and 1598,- but these outbreaks were eclipsed by the visitation of 1605. The plague of 1605 began in April, reached its peak in July and subsided in November, though sporadic cases occurred until at least February 1606. The monthly records of burials in 1605 present, as fig. 1.1 shows, a classic curve of bubonic plague.' The total of 1053 burials was more than five times the annual average of 182 burials between 1600 and 1604.' The severity of the plague is reflected not only in the number of burials, but also in the local reaction to the epidemic. In August 1605 there were 'no christenings by reason of the extremitye of the sickenes', in June July and August there were no weddings for the same reason,' and in the autumn the Court Eeet was not held. The measures taken to relieve suffering also reflect the severity of the plague, though they took a conventional form. In May 1605 a local tax was levied for the relief of the infected and suspected, and in June an order was issued that people 30 T.S. Willan Burials 300- 280- 260- 240- 220- 200- 180- 160 - UO - 120 - 100 - 80 - 60- 40 - 20 - 13 JFMAMJJASOND Month Burials U 18 11 37 82 19429923585 52 17 9 Total 1053 Fig. 1.1 Burials in 1605 in Manchester Parish Register. Plague in Manchester 31 coming into Manchester were to have a certificate that they were free from infection. As the plague increased the local sources of taxation proved inadequate, and in July the hundred of Salford was ordered to contribute £56 a week for relief. This, too, proved inadequate, and early in October the taxation was extended to three more hundreds, and on 9 October to the whole county. The money was used largely to make weekly payments of 7d. to 'needers', Is. to the infected who were isolated in their own homes, and Is. or ls.4d. to the infected who had been removed to the cabins on Collyhurst common. In the week ending 30 August 1605 payments were made to 724 'needers', 330 infected, 72 at the cabins and 31 unspecified though probably 'needers'. The following week 1109 people received payments." All the people receiving these payments apparently lived in the townships of Manchester and Salford, which raises the difficult question of the area covered by the deaths of 1605. At this time there was a deanery, a manor, a parish and a township of Manchester, but only the parish and township are relevant to this question of area. The parish of Manchester covered some 60 square miles and embraced some 30 townships, of which Manchester and Salford were two. The parish was served by the parish church in Manchester township, but six of the other townships, Didsbury, Blackley, Newton, Denton, Chorlton and Stretford had chapelries, of which Stretford and Didsbury have registers which survive for this period. The Stretford register is very imperfect and seems to record no burials in or around 1605. ; The Didsbury register of burials shows one suspected case of plague in August 1605, 15 deaths in September, of which 12 were of plague, and five deaths in October, of which three were of plague. This suggests a limited outbreak, and indeed 11 of the victims were from a single family." It is clear that the register of the parish church recorded burials from all over the parish, and indeed the clerk some times gave the township and, in the case of Manchester, the actual street where the deceased had lived. This was not done systematically before 1605, and as the plague spread the clerk became too busy to record such details. After 1605 the practice was resumed and by 1607 it had become the general, though not quite invariable, rule. Thus in the five years 1607-11, out of 944 burials 895 gave the deceased's township. Of these 895 burials, 40 per cent were from Manchester and 14 per cent from Salford. If these proportions are applied to the 1053 burials of 1605, then 421 of the dead had lived in 32 T.S. \VUlan Manchester township and 147 in Salford. The most difficult problem is to relate such deaths to the total population of the two townships. There is no satisfactory way of estimating the population of Salford at this time. A crude calculation, based on the Manchester parish register, shows that Salford burials averaged 25 per annum between 1607 and 1611; if the death rate lay within the band of 30 to 40 per thousand, then the population of Salford would be in the range of 833 to 625. Thus 147 deaths in 1605 would represent between 17.6 and 23.5 per cent of the population. Such a calculation is too crude to be of much value. For Manchester there is better evidence, including the parochial returns of householders in 1563, but it is not easy to interpret. The evidence does, however, suggest that the population of Manchester township was about 2000.9 If that were so, the 421 deaths of 1605 would represent a little over one fifth of the population. There are obvious dangers in assuming that Manchester's 40 per cent and Salford's 14 per cent of burials in a normal year can be applied to the abnormal conditions of 1605. Plague might well increase the proportion of deaths in the more densely populated townships like Manchester and Sal- ford as compared with the rest of the parish. The measures taken to relieve suffering during the plague have left evidence that rather suggests this. Thus early in August 1605 returns showed about 160 infected persons in Salford and 265 in Manchester. In addition 42 people were 'infected in cabins on CollyhursteV" At the end of August payments were made to 120 infected persons in Salford, 210 in Manchester and 72 in the cabins." Not all the infected would die, but those infected early in August would presumably have died or recovered before the end of the month, when their place was taken by another batch of infected. Moreover the figures relate to August when the monthly figure of burials had begun to decline from its July peak. The number of infected seems high in relation to the recorded burials, which suggests that either the case mortality rate was lower than usual in bubonic plague or that 'infected' was given a wide meaning which covered all the members of a household even if only one or two had the disease. Even so, the evidence strongly suggests that the proportion of deaths attributable to Manchester in 1605 was highter than the proportion in 1607-11. Deaths in 1605 may well have accounted for a quarter rather than one fifth of the population. Forty years later, in the greater plague of 1645, the registers of the parish church record just over 1000 burials for the township of Manchester alone, which may have Plague in Manchester 33 amounted to a quarter or even one third of the population. 12 The effects of high mortality are difficult to determine and perhaps easy to exaggerate. Did the deaths of perhaps a quarter of the population of a town in a single year produce any substantial and lasting change in the group that had hitherto administered the place? Manchester had such a group of well-to-do clothiers, merchants and shopkeepers, but it operated within a manorial framework, for Manchester was not an incorporated borough. The town was governed by the lord of the manor of Manchester, at this time Sir Nicholas Mosley, through his steward and Court Leet. The Court Leet administered through a jury and about 100 officials, ranging from the boroughreeve and constables to marketlookers, bylawmen, scavengers and so on. The Court normally met twice a year, at Easter and Michaelmas; jurors were sworn at each Court, but the officials were appointed at the Michael mas meeting." Thus on 2 October 1604 the Court Leet appointed 96 men and one woman as jurors or officials (or in some cases as both). The Court met in April 1605, but not in October because of the plague. The jurors and officials of 2 October 1604 seem to have remained in office until 24 April 1606 when the Court Leet made new appointments (including re-appointments). Finally on 1 October 1606 the Court reverted to the customary procedure of Michaelmas appoint ments by recording a new list of jurors and officials. 14 The plague obviously caused some temporary disruption of the normal administrative processes in Manchester, but did it have more permanent effects? What in fact happened to the ninety-seven jurors and officials appointed on 2 October 1604? Did they perish or did they live to serve another day? There is always a possible margin of error in assessing survival because it may not be absolutely certain that two men of the same name were in fact one and the same man, but in practice, and with care, this risk seems slight.